Recent gun violence in the US

[snuggans]

Deadly Kalamazoo shootings eyed as random spree





this is terrible, but how come the media and the Obama administration are reluctant to call this for what it is? white terrorism (possibly of the Christian, neo-pagan, or atheist type). i'm tired of all this cowardly political correctness, when are we going to call this for what it is? and why do we still have people in government accepting NRA money to continue lax gun regulation while crazy gun owners are going around committing killing sprees?

i just can't wait to find out the identities of the victims, it might tell us more into this cowardly and terrorist act. "random spree" to hell with this political correctness tiptoeing

[B. W.]

Wow, a white guy killed six people. You've obviously never read the weekend crime report for the city of Chicago.; those aren't white people doing all that killing and YES it is amazing the news media doesn't report it.

[paleologos]

Wow, a white guy killed six people. You've obviously never read the weekend crime report for the city of Chicago.; those aren't white people doing all that killing and YES it is amazing the news media doesn't report it.

For crying out loud B.W., when gansters shoot out their territorial differences they are shooting at other gangsters for the oldest reason to commit murder in the world. I can hardly see what is news in this.
This guy, Jason Dalton, on the other hand does not seem to have had a particular motive, or a particular method of chosing his victims.
Six people who did not know him, or done him any injustice, have been gunned down and many more wounded.
That is news to me.
And it is terrorism, even without a political agenda inasmuch as it causes people to feel threatened at all times, no matter where they are or what they are doing.

[B. W.]

For crying out loud B.W., when gansters shoot out their territorial differences they are shooting at other gangsters for the oldest reason to commit murder in the world. I can hardly see what is news in this.
This guy, Jason Dalton, on the other hand does not seem to have had a particular motive, or a particular method of chosing his victims.
Six people who did not know him, or done him any injustice, have been gunned down and many more wounded.
That is news to me.
And it is terrorism, even without a political agenda inasmuch as it causes people to feel threatened at all times, no matter where they are or what they are doing.

Gangsters killing gangsters? Ah, it is a little more than that:

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-pol...are-tears-them

This white guy was obviously crazy; it is even likely he is someone who should have been institutionalized, but some liberal judge wanted to protect his rights or maybe he had some other grudge that pushed him over the edge. One thing is for sure, his victims were probably not armed.

[paleologos]

...those aren't white people doing all that killing...

Where exactly in that personal opinion article that you linked to us is the race of the shooters made known?
I am calling you on prejudicial presumptions here.

[B. W.]

Where exactly in that personal opinion article that you linked to us is the race of the shooters made known?
I am calling you on prejudicial presumptions here.

You're hilarious. Even Ebony has a hard time trying to spin the facts:

http://www.ebony.com/news-views/enou...#axzz40sQuZ7zb

[Stavroforos]

For crying out loud B.W., when gansters shoot out their territorial differences they are shooting at other gangsters for the oldest reason to commit murder in the world. I can hardly see what is news in this.
This guy, Jason Dalton, on the other hand does not seem to have had a particular motive, or a particular method of chosing his victims.
Six people who did not know him, or done him any injustice, have been gunned down and many more wounded.
That is news to me.
And it is terrorism, even without a political agenda inasmuch as it causes people to feel threatened at all times, no matter where they are or what they are doing.

So it's terrorism despite not meeting the definition of terrorism...

[paleologos]

You're hilarious. Even Ebony has a hard time trying to spin the facts:

Put those facts in context.

So it's terrorism despite not meeting the definition of terrorism...

Whose definition?

[Stavroforos]

Put those facts in context.




Whose definition?

The United States'.

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

• Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
• Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
• Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

[B. W.]

Put those facts in context.

The six (out of 25) districts where the majority of Chicago's murders occur are 94% African American. How's that for context?

[Gaidin]

For crying out loud B.W., when gansters shoot out their territorial differences they are shooting at other gangsters for the oldest reason to commit murder in the world. I can hardly see what is news in this.
This guy, Jason Dalton, on the other hand does not seem to have had a particular motive, or a particular method of chosing his victims.
Six people who did not know him, or done him any injustice, have been gunned down and many more wounded.
That is news to me.
And it is terrorism, even without a political agenda inasmuch as it causes people to feel threatened at all times, no matter where they are or what they are doing.

It's a murder spree. Not terrorism. No prosecutor ever would ever be able to prove terrorism and would never even try to put it on the list of charges.

[Roma_Victrix]

It's a murder spree. Not terrorism. No prosecutor ever would ever be able to prove terrorism and would never even try to put it on the list of charges.

Terrorism has a political goal and agenda in mind when terrorizing the populace. Perhaps this guy had a political motive, but it's not very clear yet. He could simply be insane and schizophrenic, with voices in his head telling him to shoot people. That would make it a shooting spree, not terrorism. The result and loss of life is just as bad, though.

You can take a man out of Ireland, but you can't take Ireland out of a man.

I should know. I'm an American of partial Irish descent, and I've yet to be cured of my wicked, wicked ways, darling. Oh it's a trifle and a lowly thing. Some tea, then, dear?

[Stavroforos]

Where's the terrorism? Or are you just throwing that word around to show your SJW credentials?

[chilon]

Where's the terrorism? Or are you just throwing that word around to show your SJW credentials?

Um, driving around shooting and killing random people is by definition terrorism dude.

I don't know WTF that has to do with "SJW credentials" or why "SJW" is suddenly a buzzword around here but this is a textbook case of terrorism.

I'm not sure why OP thinks it might be "Christian, neo-pagan or atheist" based but this is pretty obviously terrorism. It fits the textbook freaking definition.

Diluting the term terrorism to that extent basically renders it meaningless. Intent is a vital part of the assessment. If the attacker had no tangible motive (genuine mental illness prompting a spree killing, for example) it's patently not a case of terrorism. It's a particularly American form of murder and tragedy. The attacker wouldn't have been attempting to coerce a population or government into a particular course of action through means of violence and fear.

If the murderer in this case has left a manifesto or note behind, perhaps on the assumption he would be committing 'suicide by cop', that might clarify whether or not this was intended as an act of domestic terrorism. Until we actually know their intent, we can't say for sure. And just to clarify before snuggans lays into me or someone else making the same point for giving white people a pass on terrorism or something, mental illness doesn't prevent someone from being a terrorist.

If a mentally ill person conducts an attack that conforms to the description of terrorism that Stavroforos helpfully provided, yes that is still terrorism. Example: Dylann Roof committed the Charleston Church shooting in the hope of igniting a race war. That intent rendered the attack an act of domestic terrorism, regardless of whatever it was that had shaken loose in his brain that actually prompted him to do it.

I think some of you lads overseas haven't heard all the information.

Listen to some of the witnesses from his cab who had to complain to uber. He was intimidating his fares and trying to force them to stay in the car. One man had to jump out of the car to escape what might have been his death.

While I understand you want to attempt to limit the term "terrorism" to some clearly defined ideological goal but the FBI definition of domestic terrorism does NOT have an ideological motive as a requirement for it to be domestic terrorism.

The requirement is intent to cause intimidation and coercion of the general public. That can easily be established by what is publicly known from witnesses who have spoken out.

RIP to the victims, whites killing whites, nothing to see here folks, just a white-on-white killing spree. Bernardino though? we should ban muslims lol, rite?

don't know why people are talking about SJWs

Agreed. Question: when did "SJW" become some buzzword around here. Since I started posting here in 2007 (almost 9 years now) this has always been a place where intelligent and mature discussion could be found.

I don't recall it being a place for people to post Twitter/Facebook like lowest common denominator one-liners about buzzwords like "SJW" - still not even sure what people mean when they say that as it seems to mean 100 different things to 100 different people but most that use the term use it pejoratively.

[Roma_Victrix]

While I understand you want to attempt to limit the term "terrorism" to some clearly defined ideological goal but the FBI definition of domestic terrorism does NOT have an ideological motive as a requirement for it to be domestic terrorism.

The requirement is intent to cause intimidation and coercion of the general public. That can easily be established by what is publicly known from witnesses who have spoken out.

I agree with you on so many issues as I've seen you present them elsewhere in the Mudpit, but this one leaves me scratching my head. Honestly, what are you talking about? How is this terrorism again? The general public was intimidated and coerced into doing what exactly? Terrorism by definition has an end goal and cause that it supports. It is not just violence for the sake of violence, which is what this killing spree looks like (don't know, though, facts aren't in, this guy could be a total schizophrenic for all we know).

Like I said calling this an act of terror is just an attempt to say, "look, white guy terrorist!" By your definition black inner city gangs are terrorist organizations. Fine with me. Bring the full force of anti terror forces to beat on them. The numbers killed by violent black GANGS are staggering. If they aren't terrorists I don't know what is.

Even then it still wouldn't apply, because inner city gangs don't shoot each other randomly. They shoot each other in turf wars over control of illicit trade. It would be wonderful to legalize drugs so that the incentive for them to kill each other or even join gangs in the first place is blunted severely, but that's a discussion for another thread.

[Davius]

I agree with you on so many issues as I've seen you present them elsewhere in the Mudpit, but this one leaves me scratching my head. Honestly, what are you talking about? How is this terrorism again? The general public was intimidated and coerced into doing what exactly? Terrorism by definition has an end goal and cause that it supports. It is not just violence for the sake of violence, which is what this killing spree looks like (don't know, though, facts aren't in, this guy could be a total schizophrenic for all we know).



Even then it still wouldn't apply, because inner city gangs don't shoot each other randomly. They shoot each other in turf wars over control of illicit trade. It would be wonderful to legalize drugs so that the incentive for them to kill each other or even join gangs in the first place is blunted severely, but that's a discussion for another thread.

Legalizing hard drugs would not stop 13% of the population from committing over 50% of th violent crimes in the nation. It's a problem with inner city culture. It's crap.
You may see pot legalized but never crack, coke, heroin, etc so it's a moot point.

[mongrel]

"This case comes down to "play stupid games, win stupid prizes. I agree stupid gun owners get themselves and others killed and this guy got what was coming to him. Who leaves a firearm out for a 6-year old to handle? Bye bye dummy.
I don't leave any of my death products out and unlocked even with adults around. Well, except my cars. See below.

But what about the TENS OF THOUSANDS of stupid motor vehicle owners who kill themselves and others each year? Why no whinging about them? Your irrational fear about "death products" (lol) denotes something under the surface. You're obsessed with American issues it seems. I remember another thread where you claimed to actually care about them.

The state requires that people have to have a certain level of skill before being allowed to use one. You have to have a license, offered only under strict conditions. One's infants can't simply jump in and drive off in a vehicle. Having a car is a privilege. Nobody claims that there is some God -given right to own sports cars whenever some incompetent person is turned to pulp in some traffic accident.If you are caught abusing that, by driving recklessly, or whilst drunk, you may forfeit that right. You cannot run over someone who annoys you and claim you are standing your ground.

[Davius]

As all the people posting this acronym have a similar or overlapping political views I expect, as always, they were told to overuse this phrase from their pet sites.



The state requires that people have to have a certain level of skill before being allowed to use one. You have to have a license, offered only under strict conditions. One's infants can't simply jump in and drive off in a vehicle. Having a car is a privilege. Nobody claims that there is some God -given right to own sports cars whenever some incompetent person is turned to pulp in some traffic accident.If you are caught abusing that, by driving recklessly, or whilst drunk, you may forfeit that right. You cannot run over someone who annoys you and claim you are standing your ground.

Driving a car is a privilege. Owning a firearm* is a constitutional right.

*AKA death product

[Gaidin]

A White Guy in Michigan?! Man.

[Gaidin]

Me thinks paleologos needs to learn what intent means in court.